Is Mats Wilander the best analyst today?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Laurie
  • Start date Start date
L

Laurie

Guest
Last night on Eurosport during Game Set and Mats, Anabel Croft and Mats had a discussion about Djokovic and Warwinka.

Anabel went on to ask how would Warwinka win the match and started to talk about getting a lead and maintaining it. At which point Mats gave his answer and said that he thinks it needs to be the opposite, he went on to say that he felt it would be better for Warwinka to actually go behind in the score early on, where he could then work his way into the match, thus taking away the nerves factor somewhat. Mats then went on to say that if this scenario developed, and Warwinka stayed with Djokovic even, that would give him a better chance to come out on top in the end.

At which point, Anabel said fascinating, and you could see her brow furrow slightly and you could tell the words Mats said had a major impact on her and her brain was turning quickly to process what Mats had just said, which was completely opposite to what she was suggesting.

Now, we know Mats was a great player and he knows how players feel in the heat of battle, but really that was a masterstroke of analysis by Mats because that's exactly how things played out today, with Djokovic taking the 1st set 6-2.

I always thought Mats is a great analyst on Eurosport but this was exceptional.
 
Yeah it is great advice to ask someone to go behind on the score early on against some of the world's best players. I would suggest they deliberately put balls into the net in accordance with this strategy.
 
Laurie said:
Last night on Eurosport during Game Set and Mats, Anabel Croft and Mats had a discussion about Djokovic and Warwinka.

Anabel went on to ask how would Warwinka win the match and started to talk about getting a lead and maintaining it. At which point Mats gave his answer and said that he thinks it needs to be the opposite, he went on to say that he felt it would be better for Warwinka to actually go behind in the score early on, where he could then work his way into the match, thus taking away the nerves factor somewhat. Mats then went on to say that if this scenario developed, and Warwinka stayed with Djokovic even, that would give him a better chance to come out on top in the end.

At which point, Anabel said fascinating, and you could see her brow furrow slightly and you could tell the words Mats said had a major impact on her and her brain was turning quickly to process what Mats had just said, which was completely opposite to what she was suggesting.

Now, we know Mats was a great player and he knows how players feel in the heat of battle, but really that was a masterstroke of analysis by Mats because that's exactly how things played out today, with Djokovic taking the 1st set 6-2.

I always thought Mats is a great analyst on Eurosport but this was exceptional.
Click to expand...

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.
 
The Best

dm_091029_ncf_fowler_gameday_preview.jpg
 
They are not exactly popular here at TT, but my favorite analysts are: Mats Wilander, Mary Carillo and Brad Gilbert.
 
Analysts? I can "analyze" just don't give me commentators that are annoying..

Can Johnny Mac not fly to Australia? Why must I suffer thru the likes of Giblets, Evert, and Mary Jo?
 
sureshs said:
Yeah it is great advice to ask someone to go behind on the score early on against some of the world's best players. I would suggest they deliberately put balls into the net in accordance with this strategy.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It would have been still easier if Stan started his comeback after being 0-2 sets down. Novak would then be thinking he has the match in his hand and would be clowning.

What a joke this guy is.
 
No and he is a terrible commentator. He just rambles and then doesn't say anything for 15 minutes at a time.

Wilander also said that Wawrinka had no chance to win the match in the same interview. Nice of you to leave that out :razz:
 
Getting behind early and being looser with your shots thereafter is nothing out of the ordinary. Seems pretty trivial and obvious. It's not that Mats is a great analyst, it's that Croft is a one-dimensional thinker, much like many on this forum.
 
WhiskeyEE said:
No and he is a terrible commentator. He just rambles and then doesn't say anything for 15 minutes at a time.

Wilander also said that Wawrinka had no chance to win the match in the same interview. Nice of you to leave that out :razz:
Click to expand...

I didnt hear that bit actually, must have been earlier in the broadcast.
 
Laurie said:
I didnt hear that bit actually, must have been earlier in the broadcast.
Click to expand...

I think it was a few seconds after he said the quote you provided. He said "I don't think Wawrinka has a chance to win because of his 14 straight losses to Djkokovic."

Then he had his foot in his mouth the entire match.
 
Laurie said:
Last night on Eurosport during Game Set and Mats, Anabel Croft and Mats had a discussion about Djokovic and Warwinka.

Anabel went on to ask how would Warwinka win the match and started to talk about getting a lead and maintaining it. At which point Mats gave his answer and said that he thinks it needs to be the opposite, he went on to say that he felt it would be better for Warwinka to actually go behind in the score early on, where he could then work his way into the match, thus taking away the nerves factor somewhat. Mats then went on to say that if this scenario developed, and Warwinka stayed with Djokovic even, that would give him a better chance to come out on top in the end.

At which point, Anabel said fascinating, and you could see her brow furrow slightly and you could tell the words Mats said had a major impact on her and her brain was turning quickly to process what Mats had just said, which was completely opposite to what she was suggesting.

Now, we know Mats was a great player and he knows how players feel in the heat of battle, but really that was a masterstroke of analysis by Mats because that's exactly how things played out today, with Djokovic taking the 1st set 6-2.

I always thought Mats is a great analyst on Eurosport but this was exceptional.
Click to expand...

That might be the stupidest piece of tennis analysis ever uttered--and given the quality of commentary out there, that is indeed quite an accomplishment.

Perhaps the Bills should spot the Patriots a couple of touchdowns each time they play, to give those Patriots a false sense of confidence and defuse those early game jitters. Then, if they maintain or even cut into that margin, the Bills can be proud that they "kept up" a respectable scoreline.
 
TTMR said:
That might be the stupidest piece of tennis analysis ever uttered--and given the quality of commentary out there, that is indeed quite an accomplishment.

Perhaps the Bills should spot the Patriots a couple of touchdowns each time they play, to give those Patriots a false sense of confidence and defuse those early game jitters. Then, if they maintain or even cut into that margin, the Bills can be proud that they "kept up" a respectable scoreline.
Click to expand...

Who won the match?
 
I've always been partial to Robbie Koenig's commentary. Some of that may be because of the awesome phrases he comes up with, though.

Nonetheless, it is a shame he doesn't commentate on the slams.
 
TTMR said:
That might be the stupidest piece of tennis analysis ever uttered--and given the quality of commentary out there, that is indeed quite an accomplishment.

Perhaps the Bills should spot the Patriots a couple of touchdowns each time they play, to give those Patriots a false sense of confidence and defuse those early game jitters. Then, if they maintain or even cut into that margin, the Bills can be proud that they "kept up" a respectable scoreline.
Click to expand...

I don't think he meant that Wawa should purposely go down early. He's saying given that it happens, it may actually turn out better for Wawa.
 
Mats Wilander had one of the best brains in tennis when he was a player. Nobody was better at knowing the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent, and where matches could be won and lost.
 
Mustard said:
Mats Wilander had one of the best brains in tennis when he was a player. Nobody was better at knowing the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent, and where matches could be won and lost.
Click to expand...

Mats Wilander is a pseudo-intellectual who couldn't figure out how to win where it mattered - Wimbledon.
 
Laurie said:
Who won the match?
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that one is statistically more likely to win after falling behind? I wonder why all these players seem to get upset when being broken. By that reasoning, players should simply double fault/hurl shots into the stands rather than attempt to win points until an arbitrary period of time.

Players dominating from the outset? Players winning in straight sets? Players winning the first set, losing the second, and still winning the match? That never happens.

Let us use a standard best of three tennis match. These are the possible outcomes, assuming the players are equal (coin flip odds):

Win 50%
Win in straights 25%
Win in three 25%

Lose 50%
Lose in straights 25%
Lose in three 25%

Suppose you lose the first set, and, for the sake of argument, reset the momentum to neutral; that means the possible outcomes are:
Win 33%
Win in straights 0%
Win in three 33%

Lose 66%
Lose in straights 33%
Lose in three 33%

Of course, I am quite confident that if one were to use real data, the odds would be much higher in favour of the leading player. While Wilander surely did not advocate tanking the first set, any time one falls behind a player's odds of winning are necessarily reduced, his path to winning is narrower and being already down, steeper (he has less margin for error than his opponent).

This is self-evident, and really should not have to be illustrated.
 
Last edited:
Wilander's argument is idiotic.

His idea is that by falling behind, Stan's expectations would lower and he would be able to play with nothing to lose.

But he fails to realize that expectations and nervousness change throughout a match. If Wawrinka lost the 1st set, he might play freely for the next set and win it. And if he won the set after that and held a 2 sets to 1 lead, his expectations would change and he might get tight. And that's exactly what happened with Wawrinka in the 4th set yesterday.

On the other hand, if you get out to a lead and then begin to lose, your expectations would lower and you may be able to play freely again.
 
WhiskeyEE said:
Mats Wilander is a pseudo-intellectual who couldn't figure out how to win where it mattered - Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

You can't figure out how to win where you don't have the skills. The idea that you can is one of the sacred cows of the homogenized surface era. It really wasn't that difficult for Nadal to "figure out" how to do better on courts that weren't really any different from those he's already well-adapted to. Had Nadal played Wimbledon in the conditions and with the field that Wilander faced, he wouldn't have been able to figure it out either. He just doesn't have the skills.
 
helterskelter said:
You can't figure out how to win where you don't have the skills. The idea that you can is one of the sacred cows of the homogenized surface era. It really wasn't that difficult for Nadal to "figure out" how to do better on courts that weren't really any different from those he's already well-adapted to. Had Nadal played Wimbledon in the conditions and with the field that Wilander faced, he wouldn't have been able to figure it out either. He just doesn't have the skills.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir buddy.

He hasn't even figured out how to play on slow grass when it's fresh. He's only a capable 'grass' player during the 2nd week when it plays like clay. Adaptable my ***.
 
KillerServe said:
I don't think he meant that Wawa should purposely go down early. He's saying given that it happens, it may actually turn out better for Wawa.
Click to expand...

This is what the OP mentioned

At which point Mats gave his answer and said that he thinks it needs to be the opposite, he went on to say that he felt it would be better for Warwinka to actually go behind in the score early on, where he could then work his way into the match, thus taking away the nerves factor somewhat.

Unquote :

If he had really intended to say what you told, then that is quite a large difference.
 
TTMR said:
Are you arguing that one is statistically more likely to win after falling behind? I wonder why all these players seem to get upset when being broken. By that reasoning, players should simply double fault/hurl shots into the stands rather than attempt to win points until an arbitrary period of time.

Players dominating from the outset? Players winning in straight sets? Players winning the first set, losing the second, and still winning the match? That never happens.

Let us use a standard best of three tennis match. These are the possible outcomes, assuming the players are equal (coin flip odds):

Win 50%
Win in straights 25%
Win in three 25%

Lose 50%
Lose in straights 25%
Lose in three 25%

Suppose you lose the first set, and, for the sake of argument, reset the momentum to neutral; that means the possible outcomes are:
Win 33%
Win in straights 0%
Win in three 33%

Lose 66%
Lose in straights 33%
Lose in three 33%

Of course, I am quite confident that if one were to use real data, the odds would be much higher in favour of the leading player. While Wilander surely did not advocate tanking the first set, any time one falls behind a player's odds of winning are necessarily reduced, his path to winning is narrower and being already down, steeper (he has less margin for error than his opponent).

This is self-evident, and really should not have to be illustrated.
Click to expand...

Who won the match?
 
tennisaddict said:
This is what the OP mentioned

At which point Mats gave his answer and said that he thinks it needs to be the opposite, he went on to say that he felt it would be better for Warwinka to actually go behind in the score early on, where he could then work his way into the match, thus taking away the nerves factor somewhat.

Unquote :

If he had really intended to say what you told, then that is quite a large difference.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of maturity, context and awareness.
 
Now I know Mats has said some inane things over the years (his comments on Federer's alleged lack of mental toughness spring to mind) but I find it hard to believe that he said this:

"he went on to say that he felt it would be better for Warwinka to actually go behind in the score early on, where he could then work his way into the match, thus taking away the nerves factor somewhat."

It's too stupid. He said something else and you misinterpreted it.
 
Last edited:
Mats the best analyst?

He's just given Novak 8/10 for losing today? WTF, I would've scored the Serbian 5/10. Shocking.

Mats love for Federer is nauseating too.
 
LOL! Didn't know Mats had any relatives posting here.

Yeah, falling a set down to the 3 time champion who's on a 25 match win streak since last yr's USO - that's the ticket. Going 5 and starting to cramp (he admitted it after the match) - yeah, that will help getting ready for the SF and F...

How do you say 'cool story, bro' in Swedish?
 
Didn't someone say back in the 80s that the biggest weapon in tennis at the time was Wilander's brain? He's obviously very smart, knows his stuff, and has a brain for the psychology of the game, but no, I'm no particular fan of his as an analyst. Courier is one I like listening to, and Virginia Wade speaks a lot of sense also. They're the two best that come to mind for me.
 
Analysts, commentators, or alike. They all try their best to give the best 'guess'. Often their guesses are wrong, less are right, but most of the time, the guesses are kind of 'in the ball park'.

That said, Mr. Wilander has always appear to be a thinker, during his playing years and after. His comments usually comes with some logical explanations. If one consider that good, then yes, he is one of the good analysts of the game.

mats_wilander_02b_photo_michael_nilsson.jpg
 
I'm an American and basically the best commentators are the Brits and Aussies. They know when to shut up and just let the match speak for itself. American commentators just talk and talk and talk and talk and talk...commercial...talk and talk and talk...match over.
 
Wilander was horrible player to watch(boring grinder) and his worshiping over Du11 is due of his cocain past methinks. His "analysis" of game is absolute joke too. One fluked bet against 5 anecdot predictions.
 
it's a fact that some players produce their best tennis when they are actually down or about even with a higher quality opponent but then must figure out how to win those crucial important points that decide a match. wilander more likely believes that wawrinka would benefit from a scenario where he would need to produce his best tennis at the right moment against a top 4 opponent instead of trying to play at an insanely high level for a lengthy stretch of time.
 
Mats has always been a shrewed observer of tennis. Even his comments about Fed's balls shrinking was absolutely true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Mats Wilander's Commentary style
Replies
0
Views
594
Laurie
L
I
Mats Wilander speaks the truth
Replies
5
Views
1K
Inner Game
Inner Game
Cesc Fabregas
Wilander thinks Murray's backhand is a problem on clay
Replies
2
Views
801
THESEXPISTOL
THESEXPISTOL
N
Mats Wilander : Fed is not the GOAT
6 7 8
Replies
360
Views
35K
Tennisworld
T
S
Mats is the Man
Replies
13
Views
1K
jetlee2k
J
Back
Top